Gender quotas and other other positive discriminations

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question is: why don't women seek to go into politics in the same numbers?

And the follow up: How can we fix this?

A quota system is a rather blunt instrument, but we know the parties can rustle up female candidates when they are obliged to.

blackwhite

oscarBravo wrote: »

As always, you wander right up to the brink of the point.

The question is: why don't women seek to go into politics in the same numbers?

Here's a mad thought that always seems to bypass those who advocate quotas.....

Maybe try addressing the reasons why - that way we can be sure that we are missing out on the very best possible candidates - instead of pushing for quotas as a blunt instrument, which don't actually address the root of the issue.

Without quotas, parties will generally select who they think has the best chance of winning.
With quotas (of any type), parties end up selecting candidates who they think have less chance of winning, because they have to hit a quota.

Work on actually addressing the root of the problem, and then entering politics becomes much more attractive to women, which should naturally lead to stronger candidates being available (the bigger the pool to select from, etc,etc).

oscarBravo

blackwhite wrote: »

Here's a mad thought that always seems to bypass those who advocate quotas.....

Maybe try addressing the reasons why - that way we can be sure that we are missing out on the very best possible candidates - instead of pushing for quotas as a blunt instrument, which don't actually address the root of the issue.

Without quotas, parties will generally select who they think has the best chance of winning.
With quotas (of any type), parties end up selecting candidates who they think have less chance of winning, because they have to hit a quota.

Work on actually addressing the root of the problem, and then entering politics becomes much more attractive to women, which should naturally lead to stronger candidates being available (the bigger the pool to select from, etc,etc).

Believe it or not, what you've described is precisely the point of quotas.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that there are systemic barriers to entry for women in politics; let's further take it as given that once women get on the ballot, they're equally likely to get elected as men. The logical conclusion is that the systemic barriers are to getting on the ballot.

There are two approaches you can take: you can say to political parties, "please try to figure out what the systemic barriers to women are, and address them, pretty please, ktnxbai" or you can tell them "x% of candidates have to be women - if there are systemic barriers to achieving that, you're just going to have to address them".

The former approach is the one favoured by people who are vehemently opposed to gender quotas; those people for whom the idea of fairness is more important than its attainment. The problem is, it doesn't work, because it's easier to find good candidates who don't have systemic barriers to overcome.

When you point out that a quota makes it harder to find the best person for the job: yes, that's the unfortunate short-term consequence. The idea of that short-term consequence is that it forces the political parties to work harder at making it possible for better candidates to make themselves available.

When people (apart from the ones who think that women don't have what it takes to be politicians) say that they're opposed to gender quotas, what they're saying is that the existence of systemic barriers to entry is a price they're prepared to pay for the principle of equality - which doesn't make sense to me.

If you're opposed to gender quotas, but in favour of equal opportunities for women, then you really ought to be proposing an alternative to gender quotas which will achieve the same outcome of removing systemic barriers to entry.

Keyzer

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Maternity leave is 26 weeks for almost all workers. TDs are excluded. That is a systemic barrier which discriminates against women who want to be TDs.

No, that's equality right there. Male TD's don't get paternity leave, Female's don't get maternity. I think that's quite fair no?

Professor Moriarty

Keyzer wrote: »

No, that's equality right there. Male TD's don't get paternity leave, Female's don't get maternity. I think that's quite fair no?

No. In almost every other walk of life, women get maternity leave. The fact that they can't get maternity leave as TDs mitigates against a woman choosing to become a TD. The logistics of a public representative taking mat leave are obviously very difficult but the fact remains.

K-9

Keyzer wrote: »

No, that's equality right there. Male TD's don't get paternity leave, Female's don't get maternity. I think that's quite fair no?

Well saying something is equally unfair isn't a great way of getting to fairness. Woman physically give birth and need time off as an absolute necessity. Saying it's Equally tough on both exactly shows the lack of recognition of why it is generally tougher for women to get into politics.

I suppose we could continue with your reasoning and say tough, you knew what you got into, don't have children.

The problem with saying "let's fix the problems first" is the problems women face are wider societal ones. Women generally are the main carer for children and do most house keeping stuff, which means going into politics requires a big change in their everyday life, late nights, away during the week etc.

Now things are obviously better than 30 years ago on that front, men share the household and parenting burden, but it's a slow process.

blackwhite

oscarBravo wrote: »

Believe it or not, what you've described is precisely the point of quotas.

Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that there are systemic barriers to entry for women in politics; let's further take it as given that once women get on the ballot, they're equally likely to get elected as men. The logical conclusion is that the systemic barriers are to getting on the ballot.

There are two approaches you can take: you can say to political parties, "please try to figure out what the systemic barriers to women are, and address them, pretty please, ktnxbai" or you can tell them "x% of candidates have to be women - if there are systemic barriers to achieving that, you're just going to have to address them".

The former approach is the one favoured by people who are vehemently opposed to gender quotas; those people for whom the idea of fairness is more important than its attainment. The problem is, it doesn't work, because it's easier to find good candidates who don't have systemic barriers to overcome.

When you point out that a quota makes it harder to find the best person for the job: yes, that's the unfortunate short-term consequence. The idea of that short-term consequence is that it forces the political parties to work harder at making it possible for better candidates to make themselves available.

When people (apart from the ones who think that women don't have what it takes to be politicians) say that they're opposed to gender quotas, what they're saying is that the existence of systemic barriers to entry is a price they're prepared to pay for the principle of equality - which doesn't make sense to me.

If you're opposed to gender quotas, but in favour of equal opportunities for women, then you really ought to be proposing an alternative to gender quotas which will achieve the same outcome of removing systemic barriers to entry.

It's been proposed in the thread already - maternity leave needs to be addressed. Why you seem to believe that quotas are needed before that can be addressed is a strange one though.

As for the other barriers - has there been any studies done into it? Very hard to address a problem if the cause hasn't been established (other of course than "men are keeping women down - somehow....").

I look at the issue of female numbers in politics as very similar to the issue of male teacher numbers. The solution is in first understanding why the respective careers don't appeal to the respective genders, and then addressing those reasons.
Both are jobs that are too important to push inferior candidates purely to hit a notional target percentage.

marienbad

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're opposed to gender quotas, but in favour of equal opportunities for women, then you really ought to be proposing an alternative to gender quotas which will achieve the same outcome of removing systemic barriers to entry.

Here we have it in a nutshell .

Any takers anyone ?? Any proposal at all to eliminate the need for quotas ?

Anything ?

FreudianSlippers

Keyzer wrote: »

No, that's equality right there. Male TD's don't get paternity leave, Female's don't get maternity. I think that's quite fair no?

Scandinavian research and experience has shown that granting paternity leave actually does assist in increasing female representation in professional employment positions, as it gives parents equal status to work/care-give as they deem appropriate.

So, yes, giving TDs mat/pat-leave would be more equal. However, it is logically fallacious to presume that the absence of both for both genders is also equal.

K-9

Oddly enough I was just thinking about that earlier, they had to make it compulsory for men to take the leave for it to make any real affect.

oscarBravo

blackwhite wrote: »

It's been proposed in the thread already - maternity leave needs to be addressed. Why you seem to believe that quotas are needed before that can be addressed is a strange one though.

Because there's no incentive to address it. If the Dáil is composed of men (and women who aren't held back by lack of maternity leave), then the question of whether or not they can get maternity leave is an externality for them.

But if you have gender quotas, and the party grassroot organisations are having trouble filling the quotas because of a lack of maternity leave for TDs, then those grassroots will exert pressure on their elected members.

As for the other barriers - has there been any studies done into it? Very hard to address a problem if the cause hasn't been established (other of course than "men are keeping women down - somehow....").

I know it's frowned upon to tell people to use Google, but I think that's generally when making a claim that isn't widely accepted to be true - I'll let the moderators pull me up on it if not.

So: google "systemic barriers to women in politics", and have a look through the results.

I look at the issue of female numbers in politics as very similar to the issue of male teacher numbers. The solution is in first understanding why the respective careers don't appeal to the respective genders, and then addressing those reasons.
Both are jobs that are too important to push inferior candidates purely to hit a notional target percentage.

The point of quotas isn't to "push inferior candidates"; it's to force political parties to address systemic barriers in order to facilitate superior candidates.

Zubeneschamali

oscarBravo wrote: »

The point of quotas isn't to "push inferior candidates"; it's to force political parties to address systemic barriers in order to facilitate superior candidates.

To emphasize this - if there were no barriers and the best candidates won, half of them would be women. But in fact, only 22% of TDs are women.

That says that roughly 28% of our TDs are inferior candidates, men who would not have beaten the best candidates if there were no barriers.

K-9

If everything was equal, but it's hard to know if it would be 50/50 or close to it. Maybe there are areas that women generally prefer not to go into, like men with teaching and nursing.

So we can try and remove ingrained societal prejudices that women aren't suited to politics or men to nursing, but I do think trying to force 50/50 situations is artificially engineering a solution!

The current gender quotas seem a good balance. Parties have to put women forward as 30% of their candidates, then the electorate decides on who they think are the best candidates.

Zubeneschamali

K-9 wrote: »

Maybe there are areas that women generally prefer not to go into, like men with teaching and nursing.

Yes, because of the barriers.

There are barriers for men entering nursing and teaching, too.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, because of the barriers.

There are barriers for men entering nursing and teaching, too.

What are these barriers?

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What are these barriers?

Cultural stuff mostly: traditionally men became doctors and women became nurses - kids were raised knowing that. The gender balance in Doctors has swung the other way, but Nursing is still mostly female. Guys who enter nursing are often pushed towards psychiatric, where the perception is that some extra muscle is needed, re-enforcing that regular ward nurses are female.

All of which means that men who would make good nurses do not take it up.

K-9

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, because of the barriers.

There are barriers for men entering nursing and teaching, too.

Yes, but you seem to be assuming if we remove all barriers and prejudices we'll automatically find a 50/50 equilibrium. Say it works out at 65/35 after all that, and it works out most woman don't want to go into politics or men into nursing, that's just the way it is.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Cultural stuff mostly: traditionally men became doctors and women became nurses - kids were raised knowing that. The gender balance in Doctors has swung the other way, but Nursing is still mostly female. Guys who enter nursing are often pushed towards psychiatric, where the perception is that some extra muscle is needed, re-enforcing that regular ward nurses are female.

All of which means that men who would make good nurses do not take it up.

I do know that, especially in primary, male teachers have a much better chance of getting a job than females, as there are so few and as they tend to take on extra-curricular sports duties.

Not sure about men being pushed towards psych these days. I think the bias is actually the man's own bias towards a career in nursing as against there being discrimination by female nurses or hospital management.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think the bias is actually the man's own bias towards a career in nursing as against there being discrimination by female nurses or hospital management.

I agree, the barriers are mainly cultural. In my own field of software engineering, I did the same course as my brother, 6 years after him. The number of women in the course tripled in those 6 years. But it stalled way, way short of 50% since then, and now, 30 years later, the workforce is still very skewed.

Dragging this back to politics, there is a reason why we should address the gender issue there - with equality there, there is more chance it can be addressed everywhere.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I agree, the barriers are mainly cultural. In my own field of software engineering, I did the same course as my brother, 6 years after him. The number of women in the course tripled in those 6 years. But it stalled way, way short of 50% since then, and now, 30 years later, the workforce is still very skewed.

Dragging this back to politics, there is a reason why we should address the gender issue there - with equality there, there is more chance it can be addressed everywhere.

Exactly. If the decision makers are increasingly female then it should trickle down in general.

In all of this debate, it has to be acknowledged that different genders tend to have different traits. For example, nursing tends to be more hands on and more interactive with patients than other areas of medicine and so maybe women might be more attracted to that kind of work than men given that they are inherently or conditioned to be more 'caring'. Ditto, perhaps, with teaching, especially primary. Likewise, I have met very few female stonemasons.

The important thing is that there are no barriers, the chips can then fall as they wish.

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

So: google "systemic barriers to women in politics", and have a look through the results. The point of quotas isn't to "push inferior candidates"; it's to force political parties to address systemic barriers in order to facilitate superior candidates.

If you want to force parties, then abolish constituencies and introduce the party-list proportional representation. Instead of local parish pump populists, people will vote for the parties and parties can make as many female candidates as they want in their lists. If some voters will decide that some parties has too few women in their list, they can always vote against.

Zulu

Seeking to understand the problem better, can we ask WHY having fewer women in politics is a bad thing?

What, if any, is the problem with male politicians?

oscarBravo

Count Dooku wrote: »

If you want to force parties, then abolish constituencies and introduce the party-list proportional representation. Instead of local parish pump populists, people will vote for the parties and parties can make as many female candidates as they want in their lists. If some voters will decide that some parties has too few women in their list, they can always vote against.

That's a whole nother reform that can be debated on its own merits, but it doesn't do anything to address systemic barriers.

There's not a lot of point arguing against quotas by proposing alternatives that won't work.

Zulu wrote: »

Seeking to understand the problem better, can we ask WHY having fewer women in politics is a bad thing?

You can ask, but I'm a bit nonplussed that anyone would want to ask that other than as a thought experiment.

Let's try a reductio ad absurdum approach to your question: would you be in favour of banning women from standing for election? If so, why? If not, why not?

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's not a lot of point arguing against quotas by proposing alternatives that won't work.

Then what the point to demand quotas which nobody asks for? Women are not sexual minority and if they really wanted equal presentation, then they could easily achieve it and none of systematic barriers would stop them

oscarBravo

Count Dooku wrote: »

Then what the point to demand quotas which nobody asks for?

There's a rather fundamental error of logic in that question.

Women are not sexual minority and if they really wanted equal presentation, then they could easily achieve it and none of systematic barriers would stop them

Just like if someone really wanted to get out of prison, none of the locked doors would stop them.

You do understand that a barrier, by definition, stops things?

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a rather fundamental error of logic in that question. Just like if someone really wanted to get out of prison, none of the locked doors would stop them.

if it truly gifted person, then I don't see anything wrong in this statement
But because there is a huge demand for escaping from prisons, there are huge barriers around them, which I havent seen on kildare street
While for women in politics as we learned the only artificial barrier is an absence of maternity leave

oscarBravo

Count Dooku wrote: »

if it truly gifted person, then I don't see anything wrong in this statement

I'm not entirely sure what that's in reply to, but: we don't set "truly gifted" as the required standard for men in politics, so why should we set it for women?

While for women in politics as we learned the only artificial barrier is an absence of maternity leave

Someone didn't bother googling "systemic barriers to women in politics", then.

Count Dooku

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what that's in reply to, but: we don't set "truly gifted" as the required standard for men in politics, so why should we set it for women? Someone didn't bother googling "systemic barriers to women in politics", then.

I already seen whining about 5C and only childcare I can consider as artificial, the rest is natural and cannot be fixed by law

hognef

Zulu wrote: »

Seeking to understand the problem better, can we ask WHY having fewer women in politics is a bad thing?

What, if any, is the problem with male politicians?

Having mostly men in politics means the political agenda consists mostly of male and macho interests.

One of them being a desire to keep the number of men high. Clearly, that seems to be working quite well for them.

I can only assume this is why we have relatively short and largely unpaid maternity leave entitlements, why we have next to no paternity leave entitlements, why minimum annual leave entitlements are so low, why child care isn't subsidised, why there's no real solution to schools finishing up at lunch, etc.

Practically every family-oriented policy or lack of policy is less family-friendly (and hence, less female-friendly) than in other comparable European countries, to such an extent that, indeed, it conflicts with women's ability to make a career for themselves (in politics, but also in other areas).

Yourself isit

The whole point of the Democratic process is for the people to elect a government not for the government to decide whom the people can elect.

hognef

Yourself isit wrote: »

The whole point of the Democratic process is for the people to elect a government not for the government to decide whom the people can elect.

Unfortunately, the people can only pick from those that are put up for election.

K-9

Zulu wrote: »

Seeking to understand the problem better, can we ask WHY having fewer women in politics is a bad thing?

What, if any, is the problem with male politicians?

Well I don't think male politicians are inherently biased or inconsiderate of issues relating to women, but seeing as you've begged the question:

If less women in politics isn't necessarily a bad thing, then more women isn't a bad thing either!

A huge issue that has faced Ireland for years is childcare costs which effects both males and females. Would more have been done in the last 20 years if we had more female representation at the cabinet? Possibly not, but I suspect the issue would have come up more if more women had been involved.

It kind of reminds me of people who supported majority Government and discipline and the whip system. Just because that was the way it was done, we couldn't operate efficiently in any other way. Minority Government has shown we can work another way, it might be slower, but differing opinions get taken account of now and Government doesn't ram stuff through just because.

Yourself isit

hognef wrote: »

Unfortunately, the people can only pick from those that are put up for election.

There's not much restriction on getting on the ballot. And in the STV you can vote for more than one candidate.

Sand

K-9 wrote: »

If less women in politics isn't necessarily a bad thing, then more women isn't a bad thing either!

It depends on the woman though. We certainly don't need any insights from Mary bloody Coughlan.

I don't think gender is necessarily the primary problem in politics today. I think the main challenge we face is the poor quality of person in the Dail, especially the establishment parties which are rife with nepotism. On top of that they are given near total unaccountable power. In your example of child care costs over the past 20 years, when it comes to the budget the only things that matter in our system are the priorities of the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste and the MoF. Unless they are women with that priority you would see no impact no matter who else was sitting the in the Dail or at the cabinet table. If we're talking about positive discrimination, I'd first implement a requirement that 100% of party candidates must not be related to any sitting or any TD that held a seat in the past 10 years.

The idea (expressed by others, not you) that adding more poor quality candidates with different genitalia will lead to an improvement under the current system is unproven at best. Worse it seems to be rooted in putting women on a pedestal - they don't lie, they are more collaborative, they think more in the long term etc etc. The evidence for female politicians so far doesn't support that. Thatcher wasn't exactly maternal or gentle. May isnt either. Arlene Foster is up to her neck in trouble. South Koreas PM isnt a shining beacon. Merkel's dubious halo has taken a serious dent in recent years - too slow and cautious in the Eurozone crisis, too reckless in the migrant crisis. Gender quotes seem to a solution in search of a problem.

Fully agreed on the whip/minority comments as well, though that's a different topic.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

It depends on the woman though. We certainly don't need any insights from Mary bloody Coughlan.

I don't think gender is necessarily the primary problem in politics today. I think the main challenge we face is the poor quality of person in the Dail, especially the establishment parties which are rife with nepotism. On top of that they are given near total unaccountable power. In your example of child care costs over the past 20 years, when it comes to the budget the only things that matter in our system are the priorities of the Taoiseach, the Tanaiste and the MoF. Unless they are women with that priority you would see no impact no matter who else was sitting the in the Dail or at the cabinet table. If we're talking about positive discrimination, I'd first implement a requirement that 100% of party candidates must not be related to any sitting or any TD that held a seat in the past 10 years.

The idea (expressed by others, not you) that adding more poor quality candidates with different genitalia will lead to an improvement under the current system is unproven at best. Worse it seems to be rooted in putting women on a pedestal - they don't lie, they are more collaborative, they think more in the long term etc etc. The evidence for female politicians so far doesn't support that. Thatcher wasn't exactly maternal or gentle. May isnt either. Arlene Foster is up to her neck in trouble. South Koreas PM isnt a shining beacon. Merkel's dubious halo has taken a serious dent in recent years - too slow and cautious in the Eurozone crisis, too reckless in the migrant crisis. Gender quotes seem to a solution in search of a problem.

Fully agreed on the whip/minority comments as well, though that's a different topic.

Could you think of any male politicians with whom you disapprove?

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

I think the main challenge we face is the poor quality of person in the Dail, especially the establishment parties which are rife with nepotism.

Perhaps, then, we should try to remove barriers which currently discourage half the population from running, thereby losing perhaps 30% of the best candidates.

Lu Tze

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps, then, we should try to remove barriers which currently discourage half the population from running, thereby losing perhaps 30% of the best candidates.

I think you will find that far more than half the population didn't run for election.

I have no problem with encouraging more women into politics, but the blunt instrument used to implement this is an issue, when there were far better options available.

Perhaps a quota system which had to reflect within 5-10% the gender breakdown of the party membership? This would still allow a gender issues party for either gender, which admittedly wont be winning a majority anytime, but the voice of small parties can influence the public policy of the larger ones (we have seen this with the greens before they went into government).
This might also encourage more participation at a grassroots level, hopefully leading to a larger pool of candidates (men and women) for the parties to choose better candidates from for local and general elections.

Yourself isit

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps, then, we should try to remove barriers which currently discourage half the population from running, thereby losing perhaps 30% of the best candidates.

90% plus of people don't run for election. In fact representatives from the people paying for it all - the PAYE private sector tax payer - have few represtatives.

Maybe none.

If the parties are meant to be a source of barriers then why do women make up a greater proportion of party candidates than of independent candidates? This was true before any quotas were brought in too.

Zulu

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can ask, but I'm a bit nonplussed that anyone would want to ask that other than as a thought experiment.

Nonplussed??? The point, surely, of debate is to cover the topic at hand concisely. Isn't it only right to address the fundamental assumption made from the outset?

Let's try a reductio ad absurdum approach to your question: would you be in favour of banning women from standing for election? If so, why? If not, why not?

No. Banning women is a completely different matter. I wouldn't be in favour of banning anyone from the democratic process, except perhaps those that don't contribute to the society (but that's a different conversation).

I note you didn't bother answering the actual question put to you.

hognef wrote: »

Having mostly men in politics means the political agenda consists mostly of male and macho interests.

Thats just a little bit sexist, isnt it?

One of them being a desire to keep the number of men high. Clearly, that seems to be working quite well for them.

I take it you don't believe this is a conscious thing? Do you really think that our politicians only want to have male colleagues in their workplace?

I can only assume this is why we have relatively short and largely unpaid maternity leave entitlements, why we have next to no paternity leave entitlements, why minimum annual leave entitlements are so low, why child care isn't subsidised, why there's no real solution to schools finishing up at lunch, etc.

Aren't these inherited problems from previous generations? Much like the pension problem we are facing, unbroken tenure in the civil service, etc.?

Practically every family-oriented policy or lack of policy is less family-friendly (and hence, less female-friendly) than in other comparable European countries, to such an extent that, indeed, it conflicts with women's ability to make a career for themselves (in politics, but also in other areas).

I don't understand you point here tbh.

K-9 wrote: »

Well I don't think male politicians are inherently biased or inconsiderate of issues relating to women, but seeing as you've begged the question:

If less women in politics isn't necessarily a bad thing, then more women isn't a bad thing either!

Absolutely not! More women wouldn't be a bad thing! Creating a law to shoehorn more women however, is is a very very bad thing.

A huge issue that has faced Ireland for years is childcare costs which effects both males and females. Would more have been done in the last 20 years if we had more female representation at the cabinet? Possibly not, but I suspect the issue would have come up more if more women had been involved.

You see this is just speculation really. There is no grounds for this. If this was such an issue previously, then politicians would have addressed it. Life is becoming much harder for families as the cost of living is increasing. This isn't because men can't represent women, or because male politicians don't consider issues that affect us all.
Politicians are populist. Irish water didn't happen because of the gender of our TD's, it happened because the primary motivation of every politician is to be (re)elected.

Minority Government has shown we can work another way, it might be slower, but differing opinions get taken account of now and Government doesn't ram stuff through just because.

I wholeheartedly disagree. This government is crippled and paralyzed from doing anything. And I'd be amazed if it survives 2017.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

If the parties are meant to be a source of barriers then why do women make up a greater proportion of party candidates than of independent candidates? This was true before any quotas were brought in too.

Quotas will work even if the parties are not the source of all or even any barriers.

If the parties can't get women to run because, say, the ladies jacks in Dail Eireann is too small, forcing the parties to run women will highlight this barrier, and guess what, the large parties are either in Government or propping it up - they can solve the problems if they have to, even if they did not cause them.

But as long as they don't have to, they won't - the current TDs have a strong incentive not to rock the boat, since a barrel of new women TDs must displace a bunch of the current crop.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Could you think of any male politicians with whom you disapprove?

Well, it would be quicker to list the male politicians of whom I approve.

Noting that female politicians aren't doing notably better than male politicians isnt an endorsement of male politicians. It's just noting there is no obvious dividend from having more women in positions of power.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps, then, we should try to remove barriers which currently discourage half the population from running, thereby losing perhaps 30% of the best candidates.

What barriers do women face in 2016 that are not faced by men?

If we are talking about groups who face barriers to entering a career in politics to my mind PAYE workers are much more restricted. I cant think of a single TD with a PAYE private sector career.

The Dail is infested with teachers, publicans, solicitors, auctioneers, doctors, accountants, farmers and company directors because their job can sustain a part time political career. The likes of George Lee can leave his public sector job, do a turn in the Dail, and then pick up 'his spot' again back in the public sector when he decides its not for him. No PAYE worker can hold down a 9-5 office job commuting from Meath, and do the work to build up the necessary profile to be a TD unless they somehow learn to function without sleep.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

Well, it would be quicker to list the male politicians of whom I approve.

Noting that female politicians aren't doing notably better than male politicians isnt an endorsement of male politicians. It's just noting there is no obvious dividend from having more women in positions of power.



What barriers do women face in 2016 that are not faced by men?

If we are talking about groups who face barriers to entering a career in politics to my mind PAYE workers are much more restricted. I cant think of a single TD with a PAYE private sector career.

The Dail is infested with teachers, publicans, solicitors, auctioneers, doctors, accountants, farmers and company directors because their job can sustain a part time political career. The likes of George Lee can leave his public sector job, do a turn in the Dail, and then pick up 'his spot' again back in the public sector when he decides its not for him. No PAYE worker can hold down a 9-5 office job commuting from Meath, and do the work to build up the necessary profile to be a TD unless they somehow learn to function without sleep.

One half of the population would be represented by more people who understand what is like to be a woman. For instance, issues to do with pregnancy and maternity would be better understood by legislators. That's a notable dividend.

hognef

Zulu wrote: »

Thats just a little bit sexist, isnt it?

It's not. It's just an observation of the fact that people's interests and priorities depend on who those people are.

Zulu wrote: »

I take it you don't believe this is a conscious thing? Do you really think that our politicians only want to have male colleagues in their workplace?

No, i don't think it's conscious. But people tend to hire, elect and appoint people similar to themselves.

Zulu wrote: »

Aren't these inherited problems from previous generations? Much like the pension problem we are facing, unbroken tenure in the civil service, etc.?

Indeed they are. But that's no excuse for not trying (harder) to come up with solutions, as indeed they have in plenty of other jurisdictions.

Zulu wrote: »

I don't understand you point here tbh.

The point is simply that we have a relative lack of real family-oriented policies. And women tend to "suffer" disproportionately, as they are still much more likely to be the stay-at-home party, the one dropping off to and picking up from school, etc., and risk being discriminated against when seeking work, as they are likely to take time out on maternity leave.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

One half of the population would be represented by more people who understand what is like to be a woman. For instance, issues to do with pregnancy and maternity would be better understood by legislators. That's a notable dividend.

And women who have not had children, or who are barren are out of luck and have nothing insightful to add? A woman's contribution to the political process is measured by her ability to have children?

Not only do I not agree with you, but its ironically very 1950s of you.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

And women who have not had children, or who are barren are out of luck and have nothing insightful to add? A woman's contribution to the political process is measured by her ability to have children?

Not only do I not agree with you, but its ironically very 1950s of you.

You've taken the highlighted parts and deliberately put them out of context. That's very disappointing. You know, it's ok to be given an answer that might contradict your point of view or prove you wrong. It helps a person to expand their mind.

Or maybe you're misunderstanding. Here, I'll break it down for you (without your highlighting):

One half of the population - females
would be represented by more people - more female TDs
who understand what is like to be a woman. - females understand what it's like to be female
For instance, - let me offer you an example of a way that might be helpful
issues to do with pregnancy and maternity - matters that affect females when having babies
would be better understood by legislators. - If more lawmakers are females then there is a better chance they will understand pregnancy and maternity
That's a notable dividend. - That's better for females.


Now, rather than deliberately trying to misrepresent me, why not address my point?

marienbad

Sand wrote: »

If we are talking about groups who face barriers to entering a career in politics to my mind PAYE workers are much more restricted. I cant think of a single TD with a PAYE private sector career.

So you concede the point that women are restricted to entering a career in politics then ? Just less restricted than PAYE workers ?

I happen to agree with your sentiments on this and I see no reason why we should not do something to help both sectors have fair access to political office .

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You've taken the highlighted parts and deliberately put them out of context. That's very disappointing. You know, it's ok to be given an answer that might contradict your point of view or prove you wrong. It helps a person to expand their mind.

Or maybe you're misunderstanding. Here, I'll break it down for you (without your highlighting):

One half of the population - females
would be represented by more people - more female TDs
who understand what is like to be a woman. - females understand what it's like to be female
For instance, - let me offer you an example of a way that might be helpful
issues to do with pregnancy and maternity - matters that affect females when having babies
would be better understood by legislators. - If more lawmakers are females then there is a better chance they will understand pregnancy and maternity
That's a notable dividend. - That's better for females.


Now, rather than deliberately trying to misrepresent me, why not address my point?

Oh, I understand (and disagree with) you, I just thought it amusing that someone advocating gender quotas to combat discrimination would so clearly link women with pregnancy/child rearing. To the exclusion of men who apparently have no insight on children or their care. Like I said, a very 1950s attitude.

I can understand why you did it to, because apart from that men and women live broadly the same experience - there is no other distinction worth mentioning between male and female TDs who are overwhelmingly teachers, lawyers, accountants, company directors, farmers and so on but not PAYE workers. If you didn't talk about pregnancy and childbirth which is a biological female experience...what else do you have?

And lets face it, we do not elect our TDs because of their broad experience or knowledge. TDs legislate on matters with which they have no experience or knowledge of and this is accepted as a matter of course. Why is more important to have hands on experience when it comes to legislating for child birth than for example crime or social media or copyright law?

Of course women can and should contribute to political life, but they already can. They face no barriers to entry that men do not face. They offer no "secret knowledge" that is handed down from mother to daughter like some ancient female cult to justify a minimum quota. They are people, just like other people. Some of them are good, some of them are bad. Some of them are wise, some of them are eejits. Women face no notable barriers to entering into political life in 2016 if that is what they wish to pursue. People can vote for them, or not vote for them if they wish.

If statistical anomalies are the enemy, then the massive over-representation of teachers, farmers and 'professionals' is much more of an issue than gender. A male and female TD who are qualified lawyers will have far more in common with each other than they ever would with a PAYE worker. Its got to the extent where TDs need focus groups and polls to understand the people they are supposed to represent.

Skommando

When is there going to be a call for gender quotas in all the dirty dangerous jobs like bin collection, sewerage works etc ?

Funny we don't see anyone calling for gender quotas or equality there.

Sand

Skommando wrote: »

When is there going to be a call for gender quotas in all the dirty dangerous jobs like bin collection, sewerage works etc ?

Funny we don't see anyone calling for gender quotas or equality there.

There never will be.

I saw a report about a girl in Nepal dying because she had been banished from her home as she was menstruating. In Nepal, though it is officially banned, there is a cultural view that women are going through their cycle or who have recently given birth are unclean. They are banished to the outskirts of the village to live in huts which are often used as shelters for animals. This poor girl was freezing in a poorly ventilated hut. She lit a fire to keep warm, fell asleep and died in her sleep due to the carbon monoxide.

But feminism is about cherry picking plum jobs and roles for upper class women. Certainly not for demanding equal representation in waste management. They of course sympathise with the girl, but how does it benefit them?